[1]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

PIL No. 41 of 2017

IN RE Effective Implementation of Prevention of Cruelty to

Animal Act, 1960 and its Rules

... Petitioner

- Versus -

1. The State Government through its Chief Secretary.

2. The principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary (Vety. &

Animal Husbandry), Govt. of Manipur.

3. The Director, Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Govt. of

Manipur.

4. The Animal Welfare Board of Manipur through its Member

Secretary [Director (Veterinary & Animal Husbandry), Govt.

of Manipur]

5. Manipur Pony Development Board through its Member

Secretary [Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary

(Veterinary & Animal Husbandry), Govt. of Manipur]

6. Animal Welfare Board of India, Through its Secretary, 13/1,

Third Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-600 041, Tamil Nadu.

... Respondents

B E F O R E HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH

For the petitioner : Mr. A Romenkumar, Advocate Amicus-Curiae

For the respondents : Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned A.G.

asstd. by Mr P. Tamphamani, counsel.

Date of Hearing : 25-07-2018

Date of Order : 25-07-2018

FR/NFR

[2]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

O R D E R (Oral)

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

[1] Heard Shri A Romenkumar, learned Amicus-Curiae and Shri N.

Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Shri P

Tamphamani, learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

[2] This PIL was taken up suo moto on a representation submitted by

the People For Animal, Manipur (hereinafter referred to as “the PFA,

Manipur”), a Registered Trust raising various issues regarding the non-

implementation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,

1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the rules made thereunder.

[3.1] The genesis of this PIL is that on 30th August, 2017 at about 4:30

pm, the complainant namely, Shri L. Biswajeet Meitei, lodged a complaint

stating that one Eco Van (silver colour) with registration No. MN04 A/9991

carrying 7(seven) numbers of dogs in a very cruel manner, was found. The

dog’s limbs were tied up by metal binding wires and all the dogs were adult

with the allegation that they were being transported for consumption. A case

under FIR No. 243(8)2017 IPS U/s 11(a)(d)(e)(k) of the Act was registered

and when the grounds of arrest and charges being explained to the accused

persons, they pleaded guilty and accordingly, the CJM, Imphal West vide its

order dated 31.08.2017 convicted them and imposed a fine of Rs 50/- each

with the direction that they should deposit a separate amount of Rs. 5000/- as

expenses towards the maintenance of the seized dogs. It was further directed

that after the seized dogs being kept with the PFA, Manipur for seven days,

their custody should be given to the State Veterinary Hospital or any SPCA in

[3]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

Manipur and thereafter, the seized dogs be put for adoption. After about a

month and half, the PFA, Manipur vide its letter dated 18.10.2017 requested

the Principal Secretary, Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Government of

Manipur to take custody of the seized dogs on the ground that it did not have

facilities for keeping dogs for a longer period and moreover, the PFA, Manipur

was incurring heavy expenses towards maintenance of the dogs. However,

the Director, Vety. & A.H Services, Manipur vide its letter dated 23.10.2017

informed the PFA, Manipur that the Department does not have any scheme

for providing permanent or temporary shelter to the animals and birds except

for providing health services in its Hospitals and dispensaries and accordingly,

expressed its inability to take custody of the seized dogs. According to the

PFA, Manipur, not only the said dogs, there are so many homeless domestic

animals like pony, cattle, cows and bulls which need proper shelter and care.

Having no alternative, the PFA, Manipur approached the Hon’ble the Acting

Chief Justice, High Court of Manipur by way of a representation with the

following prayers:

(a) To direct the State Government and in particular, the

Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Government

of Manipur, to construct proper animal shelters in all the

districts at the earliest as stipulated in the Act, 1960 and the

rules made thereunder;

(b) To direct the State Government to provide the SPCA with

necessary infrastructure and funds for proper running of

animal shelters;

[4]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

(c) To direct the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry,

Manipur to have night OPD and IPD facilities and to procure

ambulance suitable for large animals;

(d) To direct the SPCA, Imphal West and Imphal East or the

Department of Veterinary Animal Husbandry, Manipur to take

custody of the said dogs and to compensate the PFA, Manipur

for the money spent by it while looking after the said dogs;

(e) To direct the State Government to implement the Manipur

Pony Conservation and Developments Policy, 2016 for

providing facilities and funds for breeding, feeding, medical

care of ponies and other activities relating to pony;

(f) To direct the State Government to ensure that animals

specially cattle and pony are not allowed to be abandoned by

the owners for loitering on roads;

(g) To direct the Animal Welfare Board of India to advise the State

of Manipur for proper implementation of the mandatory

requirements under the Act and the rules made thereunder.

[3.2] On 22.11.2017 when this PIL came up for consideration by this

Court, Shri N. Kumarjit, learned Advocate General, Manipur submitted that he

be granted sometime to take instructions in the matter. On 4.12.2017 when

the matter came again for consideration, this Court, after taking note of the

prayer made by the PFA, Manipur that they should be provided with financial

assistance for continuing maintenance of the dogs, directed the State

[5]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

Government to release a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only.

In view of the important issues involved in the PIL, Shri A. Romenkumar,

learned Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. As the

PFA, Manipur continued to expend money towards the maintenances of the

dogs, this Court on 26.2.2018 directed the State Government to release a

further sum of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty Thousands) only.

[4] Since the animals being an integral part of the Indian economy and

are being used in various fields like agriculture, transportation, amusement

etc., the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted by the Union

of India and the relevant rules were made thereunder, from time to time, some

of which mention may be made, are-(a) the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

(Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals) Rules, 2001; (b) the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and

(c) the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case

Property Animals) Rules, 2017 which are hereinafter referred to as “the

Prevention Rules, 2001”; “the Birth Control Rules, 2001” and “the

Prevention Rules, 2017” respectively. Section 4 of the Act provides for the

establishment of the Animal Welfare Board of India for the purpose of

promotion of animal welfare and protection of animals from being subjected to

unnecessary pain or suffering. The detailed functions of the Board are

enumerated in Section 9 of the Act. Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2001

provides that every State Government shall establish a society for every

district in the State to be the SPCA in that district and a Managing Committee

thereof shall be appointed by the State Government. Rule 4 provides that

every State Government shall provide adequate land and other facilities to the

[6]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

Society for the purpose of constructing infirmaries and animal shelters. The

Birth Control Rules, 2001 talks about the obligations of the Local Authority

which are detailed in Rule 6 thereof and sub-rule (1) (a) states that the local

authority shall provide for establishment of a sufficient number of dog pounds

including animal kennels/ shelters. Rule 3 of the Prevention Rules, 2017

provides for keeping animals in infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare

Organization or Gaushala during the pendency of the litigation. Rule 8 also

provides that if the accused is convicted or pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall

deprive him of the ownership of animals and forfeit the same to the centre

already having the custody for proper adoption or other depositions.

[5] The importance of safeguarding the welfare of the animals can be

looked at from the angle of the provisions of the Constitution of India and in

particular, Article 21 of the Constitution which mandates that no person shall

be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure

established by law. It is well settled that the right to life, as enshrined in Article

21, means something more than survival or animal existence. The scope of

the right to life has been expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and

again, and in other words, the right to life would include all those aspects of

life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. In

Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja & ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the word “life” includes all

forms of life including animal life which are necessary for human life. Para 72

reads as under:-

“72. Every species has a right to life and security, subject to

the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of

[7]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while

safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word

“life” has been given an expanded definition and any

disturbance from the basic environment which includes all

forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for

human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the

Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view, “life”

means something more than mere survival or existence or

instrumental value for human beings, but to lead a life with

some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals’ well-being

and welfare have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3

and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to

live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get

protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary

pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under

Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51-A(g) of

the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed

right under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules

framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated.

The right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined

to human beings alone, but to animals as well. The right, not to

be beaten, kicked, overridden, overloaded is also a right

recognised by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act.

Animals also have a right against human beings not to be

tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant, since laws

are made by humans. Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1)

is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence, hence

being violated with impunity defeating the very object and

purpose of the Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary

action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to

safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.”

[8]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

[6] It may be noted that some matters concerning issues relating to

prevention of cruelty to animals and the welfare of the animals came up

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for consideration on many occasions. In

Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (2007) 2 SCC

413, the Honb’le Supreme Court held;

“32. On consideration of the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, in the larger interest of the citizens

of Jodhpur, we issue the following directions:

1. We direct the dairy owners/ operators who were

allotted land in the Milkmen Colony at Pal Road, but are

still continuing to operate within the city limit to shift to a

new colony which has been made available to them by the

respondent State as expeditiously as possible and in any

event on or before 31-3-2007;

2. The other milk dairy owners/ operators who are

running the dairies and keeping their cattle in the city of

Jodhpur but have not been allotted land shall also shift

their dairies and their cattle outside the city of Jodhpur on

or before 30-4-2007. The respondent State of Rajasthan

and the Municipal Corporation at Jodhpur are directed to

ensure that necessary facilities and infrastructure as

directed by the Division Bench to the dairy

owners/operators are provided, if not already provided;

3. The Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur is directed to

remove unattended stray animals, such as, stray cattle,

bulls, dogs, pigs, etc. from the city of Jodhpur as

expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30-

4-2007;

[9]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

4. The respondent State Government is directed to frame

guidelines regarding proper use of plastic bags in the State

because number of deaths of cattle on account of

consuming of plastic bags have been reported. The State

Government is directed to frame necessary guidelines on

or before 31-3-2007;

5. The Municipal Corporation is directed to ensure that

used plastic bags and other plastic materials must be

separated from other garbage and destroyed to prevent

their consumption by cattle, bulls and other animals;

6. The respondent State Government and the

Corporation are directed to ensure that the basic

infrastructure is made available to the milk dairy owners/

operators as expeditiously as possible and in any event on

or before 25-3-2007;

7. In order to ensure meticulous compliance with the

directions of this Court and that of the High Court and to

ensure relocation of the milk dairies, we direct the

committee appointed by the High Court to submit

compliance report on or before 7-5-2007.”

In Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. People for Elimination of

Stray Troubles & ors. (2016) 2 SCC 598, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held;

“14. Rule 6 provides for obligations of the local authority.

Rule 7 deals with capturing/ sterilisation/ immunisation/

release. Rule 8 deals with identification and recording and Rule

9 provides for euthanasia of street dogs. Rule 10 deals with

furious or dumb rabid dogs.

[10]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

15. As we find, the local authorities have a sacrosanct duty

to provide sufficient number of dog pounds, including animal

kennels/ shelters, which may be managed by the animal

welfare organisations, that apart, it is also incumbent upon the

local authorities to provide requisite number of dog vans with

ramps for the capture and transportation of street dogs; one

driver and two trained dog catchers for each dog van; an

ambulance-cum-clinical van as mobile centre for sterilisation

and immunisation; incinerators for disposal of carcasses and

periodic repair of shelter or pound.

16. Rule 7 has its own significance. The procedure has to be

followed before any steps are taken. Rules 9 and 10 take care

of the dogs which are desirable to be euthanised.

17. We may note with profit that Mr Shekhar Naphade,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for Bombay Municipal

Corporation would contend with vehemence that the

Corporation has a duty under the Act to remove the dogs that

create nuisance. As stated earlier, we will advert to the same at

a later stage, but for the present it is suffice to say that all the

State Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, District

Boards and local bodies shall be guided by the Act and the

Rules and it is the duty and obligation of the Animal Welfare

Board to see that they are followed with all seriousness. It is

also the duty of all the municipal corporations to provide

infrastructure as mandated in the statute and the rules. Once

that is done, we are disposed to think for the present that a

balance between compassion to dogs and the lives of human

beings, which is appositely called a glorious gift of nature, may

harmoniously co-exist.

18. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides are at

liberty to file affidavits which may contain the data of the dog

[11]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

bites and the steps taken by the local bodies with regard to

destruction/removal of the stray dogs. They are also at liberty

to file data pertaining to population of stray dogs. The local

authorities shall file affidavits including what kind of

infrastructures they have provided, as required under the law.

Needless to emphasise, no innovative method or subterfuge

should be adopted not to carry out the responsibility under the

1960 Act or the 2001 Rules. Any kind of laxity while carrying

out statutory obligations is not countenanced in law.

19. A copy of the order passed today be sent to the Chief

Secretary of each of the States and the competent authority of

Union Territories, so that they can follow the same in letter and

spirit. We would also request all the High Courts not to pass

any order relating to the 1960 Act and the 2001 Rules

pertaining to dogs. Needless to say, all concerned as

mentioned hereinabove, shall carry out this order and file their

respective affidavits as directed. Let the matter be listed on 9-

3-2016.”

[7] Shri A. Romenkumar, the learned Amicus Curiae has drawn the

attention of this court to the sorry state of affairs in the State and

according to him, the State Government has failed to implement the

various provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder as well as

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, as

aforesaid hereinabove. The stand of the State Government as indicated

in their affidavit dated 16-07-2018 is that Societies for prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) have been established in six districts

pursuant to the Notification dated 26-10-2012 issued by the

Commissioner (Vety & AH), Government of Manipur. It has further been

[12]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

stated in the affidavit that the State Government has directed the Director

(Vety & AH), Government of Manipur to designate the Joint Director

(Veterinary) as the Joint Director, Animal welfare Board and three

Deputy Directors to be in-charge of IEC & awareness, shelter homes for

rescue animals, legal matter and planning etc. The Animal Welfare

Board is not functional properly for want of fund. Necessary steps have

been taken to implement the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. Nagaraja,

(2014) 7 SCC 547. Necessary steps are being taken up to set up animal

shelter at Porompat at the earliest. So far as the direction relating to

throwing of plastic materials is concerned, it has been stated that the

Department is not concerned with it but the concerned authority has

been requested for proper disposal of plastic materials so as to enable to

prevent from consumption by the animals.

[8] The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae appears to have

some force and merit. From the perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of

the State respondents, it is clearly seen that despite the relevant rules

having been framed, way back, in the year, 2001, the Animal Welfare

Board still remains admittedly non-functional and SPCAs have been

established only in the year, 2012 on papers only, as is evident from the

letter dated 23-10-2017 addressed to the PFA, Manipur by the Director

(Vety & AH) informing that the Department does not have any scheme for

providing permanent or temporary shelter to animals and birds. The

callous attitude being shown to by the State Government and the

[13]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

insensibility to the issue relating to the welfare of the animals which has

been held to be included within the meaning of the “right to life”, are

unfortunate. Although it has been stated in the affidavit that necessary

steps have been taken for purpose of implementing the provisions of the

Act and the rules made thereunder as well as the orders/ directions passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the documents in support thereof have not

been placed on record for perusal by this court. The Act, 1960 and the

rules made thereunder, being enacted by the Union of India, the State

Government is bound to implement the provisions thereof and in addition

thereto, the State Government is bound to comply with the orders passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The State Government shall not be swayed

by a wrong notion or an impression that nobody would approach the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a contempt proceeding against the State

Government for its non-compliance with the Apex Court’s order. It is the

bounden duty of the State Government to have due respect for the Apex

Court and in other words, our country being a welfare State, the State of

Manipur ought to act fairly and reasonably with a view to keep a healthy

environment for purpose of making the human life meaningful. In this

regard, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian

Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & ors. (1996) 5 SCC

281 is relevant and para 26 thereof is as under:

“26. Enactment of a law, but tolerating its infringement, is

worse than not enacting a law at all. The continued

infringement of law, over a period of time, is made possible

by adoption of such means which are best known to the

[14]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

violators of law. Continued tolerance of such violations of law

not only renders legal provisions nugatory but such tolerance

by the enforcement authorities encourages lawlessness and

adoption of means which cannot, or ought not to, be

tolerated in any civilized society. Law should not only be

meant for the law-abiding but is meant to be obeyed by all for

whom it has been enacted. A law is usually enacted because

the legislature feels that it is necessary. It is with a view to

protect and preserve the environment and save it for the

future generations and to ensure good quality of life that

Parliament enacted the anti-pollution laws, namely, the Water

Act, Air Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

These Acts and Rules framed and notification issued

thereunder contain provisions which prohibit and/or regulate

certain activities with a view to protect and preserve the

environment. When a law is enacted containing some

provisions which prohibit certain types of activities, then, it is

of utmost importance that such legal provisions are effectively

enforced. If a law is enacted but is not being voluntarily

obeyed, then, it has to be enforced. Otherwise, infringement

of law, which is actively or passively condoned for personal

gain, will be encouraged which will in turn lead to a lawless

society. Violation of anti-pollution laws not only adversely

affects the existing quality of life but the non-enforcement of

the legal provisions often results in ecological imbalance and

degradation of environment, the adverse effect of which will

have to be borne by the future generations.”

[9] Being conscious of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Animal Welfare Board India case (supra) by which all the High

Courts have been requested not to pass any order relating to the Act, 1960

and the 2001 rules pertaining to dogs, we refrain ourselves from passing

[15]

PIL No. 41 of 2017

any order thereto but this PIL stands disposed of with the direction that the

State Government shall implement the provisions of the Act and the rules

made thereunder, in letter and spirit, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and submit a compliance report thereof to this court within four

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

John